1

Suppose that, on top of a circle, you have a circular sector with a central angle of 90° and that the sector can spin about the center, always covering 1/4 of the circle below.  Suppose you spin the sector, let it stop, and color in the area of the circle where the sector stopped.  How many times would you expect to spin the sector in order to color in the entire circle?

Can this be generalized for a central angle of m°?

I have not been sure how to approach this problem.  At one point, I simply tried to find what percent of the circle you'd expect to be colored in after 2 spins, 3 spins. However, I realized that this is not an equivalent question, though perhaps this method might yield some means of approximation. 

At another point, I began thinking about the problem as in some ways akin to a coupon collector problem with coupons collected in groups So, imagine the circle has 360 sectors of 1° each. You spin the 90° sector then fill in or "collect" the ninety 1° sectors where the spinner stopped until you have filled in or "collected" all 360. I don't know how to work out this sort of variant on the coupon collector problem, which is different than the variant in the link: in the scenario I've described, you collect 90 contiguous sectors per spin, not just any 90. If it is possible to adapt the coupon collector approach in the way described, this may provide a means of approximation as well, though the original problem posed at the top does not have a finite number of items to collect or a finite number of positions where the spinner may stop.

This is where I ran out of ideas or know-how for further steps or a different method.

Thank you very much for your help and insights!

  • Do you mean that every time you spin the sector, its angular position will be random with a uniform distribution and independent of previous spins? – rayna May 10 '20 at 02:53
  • Yep, that's what I mean. – Bart Wisialowski May 10 '20 at 03:27
  • What have you tried? It would help other users if you add any attempts at this problem. See How to ask a good question. – Varun Vejalla May 10 '20 at 03:39
  • I apologize. I have not tried many approaches because I'm not entirely sure how to approach it. I tried to figure out what percent of the circle you'd expect to be colored in after, eg, 3 spins but I got lost and the approach seemed flawed anyway. – Bart Wisialowski May 10 '20 at 03:51
  • @BartWisialowski: It's a pity this question got closed; it's an interesting question; I was about to write an answer. You should have responded by editing the question, not by comment; people don't necessarily read through the comments, and the question still looks short and without any attempts of your own. You should at least edit what you wrote in the comment into the question, and to increase the chances of getting the question reopened I would suggest to flesh out the "I got lost " and "seemed flawed anyway" parts. Many people here want to see concrete efforts. (I didn't vote to close.) – joriki May 10 '20 at 07:58
  • @BartWisialowski: When you do, ping me here so I can vote to reopen. (Also if it gets reopened and I don't notice, ping me so I can write up my answer.) – joriki May 10 '20 at 07:59
  • @joriki Thanks for the tips. I'll reformulate the question, repost, and let you know. – Bart Wisialowski May 10 '20 at 19:36
  • @BartWisialowski: Please don't repost. There's a system in place for opening and closing questions; it shouldn't be circumvented by reposting closed questions, even if in this case the justification for the closure was doubtful. The question already has $2$ reopen votes; if you edit it, I'll add a third, and if we can't attract the remaining $2$ required votes, I'll post in the appropriate meta thread asking people to vote to reopen. – joriki May 10 '20 at 19:38
  • @joriki Ok, will do. Thanks again. – Bart Wisialowski May 10 '20 at 19:45
  • @joriki Ok, hopefully the post is more appropriate now. – Bart Wisialowski May 10 '20 at 20:36
  • @BartWisialowski: It certainly is, and it just got reopened. Well done :-) – joriki May 10 '20 at 22:13
  • @JeanMarie: Done. – joriki May 10 '20 at 23:55

1 Answers1

2

To find the probability that the entire circle is coloured after $n$ spins, consider the $n$ angles at which one of the edges of the sector (say, the counterclockwise one) stopped. There’s a gap in the colour if there’s a gap of at least $\frac\pi2$ between any two of these angles. For any given angle, the probability that none of the other $n-1$ angles is within $\frac\pi2$ clockwise of it is $\left(\frac34\right)^{n-1}$. If these events were mutually exclusive, we could add their probabilities to get a probability $n\left(\frac34\right)^{n-1}$ for there to be a gap. But they are not mutually exclusive; we’d be double-counting configurations with two gaps. And there is even room for three gaps. So we need to apply inclusion–exclusion.

There are $\binom nk$ ways to select $k$ particular angles, and the probability for there to be a gap clockwise of each of these $k$ angles is $\left(1-\frac k4\right)^{n-1}$. (Fix one angle; choose the $n-1$ intervals that determine the other $n-1$ angles so they add up to $\left(1-\frac k4\right)2\pi$; then insert $k$ additional gaps of length $\frac\pi2$ at the chosen locations.) Thus, by inclusion–exclusion the probability for there to be at least one gap of length at least $\frac\pi2$ is

$$ \sum_{k=1}^3(-1)^{k+1}\binom nk\left(1-\frac k4\right)^{n-1}\;. $$

This result is also proved (for general sector length) as Theorem $2$ in Section I.$9$ on p. $28$ of William Feller’s An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications ($2$nd edition).

For the expected value of the number $N$ of spins needed to colour the entire circle, this yields

\begin{eqnarray} \mathsf E[N] &=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty\mathsf P(N\gt n) \\ &=& 1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty\sum_{k=1}^3(-1)^{k+1}\binom nk\left(1-\frac k4\right)^{n-1}\;. \\ &=& 1+\sum_{k=1}^3(-1)^{k+1}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\binom nk\left(1-\frac k4\right)^{n-1}\;. \\ &=& 1+\sum_{k=1}^3(-1)^{k+1}\left(1-\frac k4\right)^{k-1}\left(\frac4k\right)^{k+1} \\ &=& 1+\sum_{k=1}^3(-1)^{k+1}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\binom nk\left(1-\frac k4\right)^{n-1}\;. \\ &=& 1+16-4+\frac{16}{81} \\ &=& \frac{1069}{81} \\[5pt] &\approx& 13.2\;. \end{eqnarray}

Here’s Java code that checks this result by simulation.

joriki
  • 238,052
  • Thank you so much! Very interesting. When you say "for all k of these gaps to exist" do you mean "for the maximum number of gaps to exist"?  The maximum number of gaps would be the same as the maximum value of k, 3 in my example.  Do I have that right? – Bart Wisialowski May 11 '20 at 04:16
  • @BartWisialowski: No – the maximum is $3$, but by "for all $k$ of these gaps" I really only mean $k$, which varies from $1$ to $3$ in the inclusion–exclusion calculation. As usual for inclusion–exclusion, "at least" is implied, i.e., there could be further gaps, but this is the probability for at least these $k$ particular angles to have gaps clockwise of them. The analogous part of the inclusion–exclusion calculation for the coupon collector's problem would be the probability that (at least) $k$ particular coupons haven't been drawn yet. – joriki May 11 '20 at 04:23
  • 1
    [+1] Very interesting... and well written. – Jean Marie May 11 '20 at 04:37
  • 1
    @JeanMarie: Thanks, that's very interesting! I had also considered using the fact that the circle is covered exactly if all endpoints are covered (similar to what I did in this answer), but it seemed more complicated than using the bijection resulting from removing/inserting the gaps. – joriki May 11 '20 at 05:22
  • Oh, I think I see. Thanks. "Could" and "all" as used in that sentence were confusing to me. – Bart Wisialowski May 11 '20 at 05:45
  • @BartWisialowski: Yes, I can see how that wording was confusing. I've tried to clarify it. – joriki May 11 '20 at 05:56
  • Btw, do you know the nice "Birds on a wire problem" ? – Jean Marie May 11 '20 at 14:05
  • @joriki I have a question about the paragraph after you link inclusion-exclusion, to make sure I understand correctly. Is this correct? (Sorry I don't know proper notation in this format.)  Suppose there have been n spins.  For any angle, the probability that it is one of at least k angles followed by a gap >π/2 is (1-k/4)^(n-1).  Ie, all of the other n-1 angles must fall in a set of regions whose sum is (1-k/4)2π.  Another follow up.  The probability that there are exactly 2 angles followed by gaps >π/2 would be: sum_(k=2, 3) [(-1)^k binomial(7, k) * (1 - k/4)^6 = 1309/4096 – Bart Wisialowski May 23 '20 at 23:19
  • @BartWisialowski: Here's a tutorial and reference for typesetting math on this site. – joriki May 24 '20 at 04:33
  • @BartWisialowski: No, neither of those is correct. We're not dealing with the probability of an angle being one of at least $k$ angles followed by a gap. That probability is more complicated. Rather, $\left(1-\frac k4\right)^{n-1}$ is the probability that $k$ particular angles are followed by gaps. The word "particular" is crucial here. The second equation is wrong because each configuration with $3$ gaps is counted three times in the $k=2$ terms, not just once, so you have to subtract them $3$ times, not once. – joriki May 24 '20 at 04:42
  • Generally, to get the probability for exactly $j$ conditions to be fulfilled, you need a generalized inclusion–exclusion principle. – joriki May 24 '20 at 04:42
  • @joriki Ah yes, that's it! I see now. Thanks for all the help. – Bart Wisialowski May 24 '20 at 05:28
  • @JeanMarie: No, I didn't know the "birds on a wire" problem – very nice (including the solutions)! – joriki May 24 '20 at 05:37